City Council seems ready to back off partway on a requirement established recently by ordinance that recovery and halfway houses should be separated from one another by at least 1,500 feet.

At a work session this week, a majority agreed informally to shrink that distance to 300 feet, matching the separation required between student houses, as stated in another ordinance.

Council revisited the recovery/halfway house separation requirement after local resident Autumn Temple pointed out that federal courts have struck down such separation requirements as discriminatory for facilities serving disabled individuals, like those with substance abuse disorder, based on the Fair Housing Law.

The council majority agreed to maintain the 300-foot separation over the objections of Mayor Matt Pacifico, who favored eliminating the distance requirement altogether, based on liability concerns and a recommendation from City Manager Christopher McGuire that in turn was based on conversations McGuire had with codes solicitor Dan Stants and city solicitor Mike Wagner.

Stants thought the 1,500-foot separation requirement was “probably defensible,” McGuire said.

One rationale for such a defense was a “heat map” created recently by staff that showed significant number of crimes occurring generally around the 25 formally recognized recovery/halfway and other institutional homes in the city — with theft, drugs, assault, vandalism and trespass being the predominant types, in descending order of percentages.

The survey, however, did not include statistics from elsewhere in the city that could have demonstrated — or not — that the concentration of crimes was higher near the institutional homes than elsewhere.

Despite the contention that the homes are a locus of higher crime, the solicitors questioned the necessity of the separation requirement, while concluding that there may be risks to leaving the separation as is, McGuire told council.

“I don’t know that we gain anything by putting it in,” he said. “(And) there’s a possibility (it would leave the city) open to litigation.”

Better to remove it, he said.

“I support that,” Pacifico said.

“Would it behoove us to mirror this with the 300-foot (separation) under student housing?” asked Councilman Dave Ellis rhetorically.

“No,” Pacifico said.

Councilman Ron Beatty spoke in support of Ellis’s argument, saying his concern is “concentration” of the homes.

Another councilman noted that many recovery homes are located in crowded neighborhoods.

If the city can show “an empirical increase in crime,” even the 1,500 foot separation could be defended, but a judge could nevertheless disagree, especially given that the issue involves protected classes, Wagner said.

It doesn’t seem like a good “hill to die on,” Pacifico said.

Another councilman speaking by Zoom concurred with Ellis.

“I feel something needs to be implemented,” stated Councilwoman Shelley Clinich.

“So be it,” Pacifico said, closing the discussion.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.